On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dave Pawson
<davep@dpawson.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:29:14 +0700
> I can definitely see advantages in this option. I would summarise it
> as:
>
> - no colons in element or attribute names,
> - except that attribute names can start with "xml:";
What do you lose if you omit this?
reserved xml: xxx ?
I think it's a basic requirement to be able to use the built-in xml:lang, xml:id, xml:base attributes. Note that XML already reserves element/attribute names starting with [Xx][Mm][Ll]. I would say it's nice feature that these built-in attribute names look different from normal attribute names. I see no awkwardness and no difficult for the learner.
James
Use full XML 1.0 (no longer micro?)
What you gain, simpler parse, no exceptions for the learner?
> - there's nothing to stop you having an attribute called "xmlns", but
> MicroXML will treat it just like any other attribute
I.e. no exceptions, simplicity. A plus IMHO
>
> Big upside: guaranteed to be namespace well-formed; simpler.
>
> Big downside: some XML infosets cannot be expressed.
If you want that, go use XML 1.0
>
> I would be interested to know whether others also find this option
> preferable.
Lose the exception for me James.
Too little gain for more awkwardness.
